If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses that satisfy
On 10/1/2010 9:35 AM, Cheesehead wrote:
So the ? is: What are the lenses you have which you find (a) satisfying and (just to get another perspective) (b) not satisfying. I use these on a super graphic.. Likes: 90 f8 SA It's an old chrome one in a 00 shutter but works great in a recessed board I found for this camera. It's the only lens I have that won't fold up inside the camera. Never had any issues with the shutter. 135 F6.3 WF Ekatar This lens always produces great images. Not crazy about the supermatic shutter but it's been pretty reliable. Small size and light for the coverage. 210 f6.8 Geronar Great lens for the money and size with more than enough coverage for use on my camera. Good coatings and shutter + folds up inside the camera. Dislikes: 135mm f4.7 xenar Maybe I just had a bad sample but this lens was disappointing. It was my first 4X5 lens and almost gave up on 4X5 after seeing the results from this. 8.5 inch f6.3 commercial Ektar Again, maybe it was a bad sample but I never got images that did much for me from this lens. The lowly Geronar I replaced this with was a MUCH better performer. Stephe |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses that satisfy
On 10/3/2010 4:39 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote:
On 10/1/2010 1:20 PM spake thus: Dislikes: 135mm f4.7 xenar Maybe I just had a bad sample but this lens was disappointing. It was my first 4X5 lens and almost gave up on 4X5 after seeing the results from this. This seems to jibe with what I've heard, which is that these lenses are nearly all dogs. Which is strange, given the Xenar's vaunted reputation in other form factors. But for some reason, these particular versions just aren't very good. Right. I have a rolliecord with a 75mm f3.5 xenar that is amazing. I wrongly assumed this 135 would be the same. It wasn't. On the commercial ektar, I have to assume I just had a bad one as most reports on them are glowing. Stephe |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses that satisfy
In article ,
Cheesehead wrote: On Oct 4, 8:56*pm, " wrote: On 10/3/2010 4:39 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 10/1/2010 1:20 PM spake thus: Dislikes: 135mm f4.7 xenar Maybe I just had a bad sample but this lens was disappointing. It was my first 4X5 lens and almost gave up on 4X5 after seeing the results from this. This seems to jibe with what I've heard, which is that these lenses are nearly all dogs. Which is strange, given the Xenar's vaunted reputation in other form factors. But for some reason, these particular versions just aren't very good. Right. I have a rolliecord with a 75mm f3.5 xenar that is amazing. I wrongly assumed this 135 would be the same. It wasn't. On the commercial ektar, I have to assume I just had a bad one as most reports on them are glowing. Stephe When I started 4x5 about 7 years ago, my first lens was a Wollensak Raptar. Dissatisfying to say the least. Not long after that I got an Optar, which I understand to be the Ektar. Average, just ok. Not unless you're talking about the 190mm one from the Super-D, in which case it's only rumored that it might be the Ektar. Otherwise "Optar" just indicates a higher-end Wollensak lens. I have never seen any good Wollensak lens, ever at all (and I've tried many) except that one 190mm example from the Super-D, which has suspiciously Kodak-like coatings... -- Thor Lancelot Simon "All of my opinions are consistent, but I cannot present them all at once." -Jean-Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses that satisfy
wrote in message ... On 10/1/2010 9:35 AM, Cheesehead wrote: So the ? is: What are the lenses you have which you find (a) satisfying and (just to get another perspective) (b) not satisfying. I use these on a super graphic.. Likes: 90 f8 SA It's an old chrome one in a 00 shutter but works great in a recessed board I found for this camera. It's the only lens I have that won't fold up inside the camera. Never had any issues with the shutter. 135 F6.3 WF Ekatar This lens always produces great images. Not crazy about the supermatic shutter but it's been pretty reliable. Small size and light for the coverage. 210 f6.8 Geronar Great lens for the money and size with more than enough coverage for use on my camera. Good coatings and shutter + folds up inside the camera. Dislikes: 135mm f4.7 xenar Maybe I just had a bad sample but this lens was disappointing. It was my first 4X5 lens and almost gave up on 4X5 after seeing the results from this. 8.5 inch f6.3 commercial Ektar Again, maybe it was a bad sample but I never got images that did much for me from this lens. The lowly Geronar I replaced this with was a MUCH better performer. Stephe Xenars seem to vary all over the place. I never liked the ones made for Graflex and I think you have one. Not sharp at the corners until stopped down almost all the way. Not as bad as the Wollensak Raptar/Optar but not so good. OTOH, the f/3.5 Xenar used on the Rolleiflex and Rolleicord is an excellent lens. Your Commercial Ektar has some problem, these should be exceptional lenses. However, I have found some Kodak lenses have an odd sort of problem with the cement in the rear component. If you look at it using grazing light it will have an orange-peel look. That will cause a lack of sharpness and loss of contrast. The lenses can be recemented and, if this is the trouble with this lens, it might be worth doing. -- -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles WB6KBL |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses that satisfy
"Cheesehead" wrote in message ... On Oct 4, 8:56 pm, " wrote: On 10/3/2010 4:39 PM, David Nebenzahl wrote: On 10/1/2010 1:20 PM spake thus: Dislikes: 135mm f4.7 xenar Maybe I just had a bad sample but this lens was disappointing. It was my first 4X5 lens and almost gave up on 4X5 after seeing the results from this. This seems to jibe with what I've heard, which is that these lenses are nearly all dogs. Which is strange, given the Xenar's vaunted reputation in other form factors. But for some reason, these particular versions just aren't very good. Right. I have a rolliecord with a 75mm f3.5 xenar that is amazing. I wrongly assumed this 135 would be the same. It wasn't. On the commercial ektar, I have to assume I just had a bad one as most reports on them are glowing. Stephe When I started 4x5 about 7 years ago, my first lens was a Wollensak Raptar. Dissatisfying to say the least. Not long after that I got an Optar, which I understand to be the Ektar. Average, just ok. My #2 son has a 2.8D Rolleiflex. IIRC it's the Xenotar. It is as good as was my 135/235 Symmar. The earlier Graflex Optar is a Raptar built for them on contract by Wollensak. At some point they switched to Rodenstock. Rodenstock Optars say "made in Germany" on them. They are quite good lenses but the Wollensak ones are dogs. One exception is the f/5.6 Optar on the Graflex Super-D. Evidently this is a different design than the f/4.5 ones and is a very good lens. The Tele-Raptar and Tele-Optar series are also very good lenses. Wollensak knew how to build good lenses but something happened with their post war Raptar and Enlarging Raptar series, they are mostly awful and should be avoided. Kodak never built any lenses that were not sold under their own name. -- -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses that satisfy
On 10/25/2010 1:52 AM, Richard Knoppow wrote:
Your Commercial Ektar has some problem, these should be exceptional lenses. However, I have found some Kodak lenses have an odd sort of problem with the cement in the rear component. If you look at it using grazing light it will have an orange-peel look. That will cause a lack of sharpness and loss of contrast. The lenses can be recemented and, if this is the trouble with this lens, it might be worth doing. That likely was the problem as the contrast is what was the real issue with it. The geronar I replaced it with was MUCH better which shouldn't have been the case given it's a cheap, 3 element lens. Stephey |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses that satisfy
wrote in message ... On 10/25/2010 1:52 AM, Richard Knoppow wrote: Your Commercial Ektar has some problem, these should be exceptional lenses. However, I have found some Kodak lenses have an odd sort of problem with the cement in the rear component. If you look at it using grazing light it will have an orange-peel look. That will cause a lack of sharpness and loss of contrast. The lenses can be recemented and, if this is the trouble with this lens, it might be worth doing. That likely was the problem as the contrast is what was the real issue with it. The geronar I replaced it with was MUCH better which shouldn't have been the case given it's a cheap, 3 element lens. Stephey The Ektar may also be hazy inside. This is a common problem with old lenses. Even a slight amount of haze will destroy image contrast. Fortunately, the inner element surfaces are easy to get to. I think all of the Commercial Ektars have back caps. First, shine a flashlight through the lens and look at it from the other side. If you see any haze inside it is the cause of the low contrast. To clean it remove the front element from the shutter or barrel. Then look at the back of the cell, there should be a threaded cap. Remove the cap and the center element will come out. Clean both of its surfaces and the inside of the front element with any window cleaner, I find the "streak free" kind to be best. That should take off any haze and leave the glass perfectly clear. Also clean both surfaces of the back cell. Unless the cemented surface in the back is bad this cleaning should improve the contrast noticably even on the ground glass. Don't worry about centering, the lens mount is designed to automatically center the elements. To check the cemented surface remove the rear cell and shine a flashlight obliquely at the lens and use a magnifying glass to see the cemented surface. Do this from both sides since it may be easier to see it from one of the sides. The surface should be invisible. If it looks hazy or you can see a sort of orange peel texture, the cement has begun to separate and the lens needs to be recemented. Note that all of the Commercial Ektar series have synthetic cement so it does not yellow or become crystalized at the edges. It _should_ last forever but I've seen the above effect in a couple of lenses. I don't know what caused it but the early synthetic cements were thermosetting and may not have been cured exactly right. These lenses are all getting on to be sixty or more years old and probably did not exhibit any problems for decades. I think Commercial Ektars are worth the cost of re-cementing. John van Stelten at Focal Point is the fellow to contact about the work. He can give you an estimate on the cost. Hopefully, the lens is just dirty. Let me know what you find. -- -- Richard Knoppow Los Angeles, CA, USA |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses that satisfy
On 10/27/2010 4:28 PM, Richard Knoppow wrote:
Let me know what you find. I actually sold this lens years ago when I saw the results I got with the geronar. So at this point it's only a guess what it's problem was. I did clean the surfaces as you noted in your post so maybe was the cement? No way to no at this point what it was. Stephey |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Lenses that satisfy
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Promaster Spectrum 7 50mm lenses compatible with Nikon lenses mount? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 3 | January 9th 08 09:00 PM |
FA: Minolta SRT-101 with 3 MC Rokker lenses, hoods, manuals macro lenses, MORE | Rowdy | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | August 28th 06 10:42 PM |